Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Under the slogan "I'm more worried about the intellectual climate", a typical confusionist group called Demand Debate has sprung up to treat CO2 as an accused defendant entitled to the best lawyers it can afford.

Well, as it happens, I'm more worried about the intellectual climate, too. Solving climate change alone is not enough. We will have to be very smart and take the best of everyone's thoughts and everyone's abilities and everyone's actions to resolve our problems to avoid severe setbacks in the next couple of centuries. We really need to know how to think more effectively, collectively.

So how well is "Demand Debate" living up to its declared intent to worry about the intellectual climate? This well:

DemandDebate.com is surveying climate experts about climate change.It would be terrific if you could take a few moments toparticipate. Please reply to this e-mail by answering the questionsbelow. Simply place an "X" in the box that best represents your view.Responses will remain confidential. If you have any questions, pleasee-mail steve@demanddebate.com

[ ] Limiting manmade CO2 emissions would have a strong impact.[ ] Limiting manmade CO2 emissions would have some impact.[ ] Limiting manmade CO2 emissions would have no impact.[ ] It would be impossible to discern the impact.[ ] No opinion.

Apolitical expert: On what time scale? It may be difficult to discern the impact of a responsible policy for a considerable time.

[ ] Warmer than the present.[ ] Cooler than the present.[ ] Occurring today.[ ] There is no such thing as an "ideal" global climate.[ ] No opinion.

Apolitical expert: Oh, come one. Ideal for what purpose?

Non-expert reader: So lots of experts don't think change is bad at all!Thank you for your response. Please return this e-mail to

Steven MilloyExecutive Director, DemandDebate.com

Aha, that explains it...

These questions are carefully chosen to have different meaning in formal and informal discourse. They are slimy tricks.

I suppose we will need to watch for this "survey", but everyone should notice these are tricks with language intended to subvert serious conversation. One can easily and consistently choose all of the positions that Milloy wants one to choose while still favoring vigorous reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.

With thanks to Dr. A. for the forward.

Update: Inel has an excellent article about the nine 'errors' that also addresses tricks with language and casual impression.

4 comments:

Eddie
said...

Talk about timing. The UK court case over Al Gore's film was also about teaching climate change in the classroom, and here in New Zealand, I heard an interview on our public radio in which a former science teacher and ACT Party (a libertarian-styled party) MP talked about 'keeping politics out of the classroom'.

It's code, of course, for either keeping climate change activism out of classrooms or 'balancing' it with "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (which she mentioned by name).

Is this the way denialism is heading? The textbook wars? Cue The Panda's Thumb and Japanese history textbooks.